Re: [Gnu-arch-users] new language, arch, furth, etc.

[Colin Walters]

On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 11:12 -0500, Charles Duffy wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 10:59, Colin Walters wrote:
> > Because it's the same as the existing RFC822-compatible format, so there
> > is no new format being created, and certainly isn't anywhere near
> > turing-complete.
> 
> I'm sorry -- languages have to be Turing-complete? 

No, but Tom is trying to argue that an new version of such a language is
needed.

> And RFC822 isn't one?

It is a language.  But it is a very well known one that is already in
use in arch and works well.

> I thought that Turing-complete was a quality that languages may or may
> not possess, not a prerequirement for being a language at all.

The point is that Tom's example did not demonstrate the need for a new
Turing-complete language.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part